Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Unauthorised Use of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ Marks by Defendants Constitute Infringement and Passing Off, Marks Declared Well-Known” – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared the marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, granting significant relief to Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. in their suit against Berachah Sales Corporation & Ors. Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the unauthorized use of these marks by the defendants constituted infringement and passing off, thereby granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The Court focused on the infringement of trademarks, observing that the unauthorized usage of Haldiram's registered trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ by the defendants for identical services satisfied the triple identity test, establishing infringement.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. alleged that the defendants were infringing upon their registered trademarks and passing off their products as those of Haldiram’s. The issue revolved around the unauthorized use of the ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ marks by the defendants on a variety of food products and related materials.

Infringement Analysis: The Court noted the long usage and recognition of the ‘HALDIRAM’ marks, underscoring that allowing the defendants to use similar marks would severely impinge upon Haldiram's rights.

Well-known Trademark Declaration: The Court declared ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, considering their duration, extent of use, advertising, and substantial recognition.

Damages Assessment: Haldiram was awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for the infringement by the defendants, with an emphasis on compensatory and exemplary damages due to the significant impact on Haldiram’s reputation.

Costs Awarded: The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to Haldiram, taking into account their legal expenses and efforts in protecting their trademarks.

Decision: Granting a decree of permanent injunction, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar marks. The well-known status of the trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was affirmed, providing broader protection against misuse.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD vs BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS

Latest Legal News